Three creators and four lawsuits again dominated the world of That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman this week with new filings, a check-in with the judge and interesting paths forward as the suits progress.
Starting with Helping Hands for Dignity Coalition v. Gurka, essentially Regan Benson vs. YouTuber Anthony “BlackHartKnight” Gurka with Gurka being represented by “Superstar” attorney Steve Vondran.
Last month Judge William H. Orrick ordered attorney Newman to write a five-page memorandum explaining why Orrick’s court had jurisdiction over the lawsuit and with preferences of what to do with the case if Orrick could not determine jurisdiction.
Newman replied, explaining why the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, why Gurka waived any personal jurisdiction defenses, and finally why the venue was proper at the time of filing. He ended the filing by asking the court to dismiss the case rather than reassign the case should Orrick not be able to establish jurisdiction.
Vondran’s response ignored Newman’s filing and instead argued that the court had no personal jurisdiction over his client. He forgave his client refusing to give his actual address in the counter complaint as Mrs. Benson, misidentified as male in Vondran’s filing, is a “known doxxer.”
Judge Orrick read both filings and ordered Vondran to follow through with a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction within twenty days of the date of order.
Moving on to the Executive Lens v. Rapkin case; Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova filed a DMCA complaint against a YouTuber known as “The Exposer.” When The Exposer filed a counter complaint, an attorney named Lee Rapkin filed the DMCA filed the counter complaint and essentially took credit for the works.
She is seeking to have her portion of the suit dismissed based on the argument that:
“This motion is made on grounds that plaintiff’s sole claim against Ms. Rapkin – plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for “Misrepresentation in Counter Notifications under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) (17 U.S.C. § 512(f))” – fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because (1) YouTube never replaced the videos that are the subject of plaintiff’s complaint; and (2) there are no alleged facts that, if true, would establish that Ms. Rapkin “knowingly materially misrepresented” any facts for purpose of the subject counter notice submitted to YouTube under the DMCA.”
Both sides filed a joint Case Management Statement. The outstanding legal issues are listed as:
Whether Plaintiff is the owner of copyrighted works that Plaintiff alleges were infringed by John Doe dba the Exposer in the videos that are the subject of Plaintiff’s Takedown Notices.
Whether John Doe dba the Exposer’s alleged use of Plaintiff’s copyrighted video content in the videos that are the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint amounted to copyright infringement, including whether John Doe dba the Exposer’s alleged use of the videos was subject to protection under the fair use doctrine. See 17 U.S.C. § 107.
Whether Defendants’ DMCA counter-notification contained material misrepresentations in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
Whether Ms. Rapkin’s refusal to identify the subscriber who operates that 1a Audits Exposé is a violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f) and (g).
Whether Plaintiff can maintain a claim for violations of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(f)) in light of the fact that YouTube never replaced the videos that are the subject of
Plaintiff’s complaint.
Whether Plaintiff alleged facts in the complaint (Dkt. 1) that, if true, could establish that Ms. Rapkin “knowingly materially misrepresented” that YouTube “removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification” the videos that are the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint and establish a violation under the DMCA
Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages, injunctive relief, or attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act or the DMCA.
Finally, Executive Lens LLC v. Reed and Liberty Troll LLC v. Reed. Again, Cordova represents Executive Lens, while Zachary Kueker represents his Liberty Troll LLC. Both are parallel sets of circumstances where the men are suing attorney Robert Reed for his role in a service he used to provide YouTube creators in order to use the address of his practice in the DMCA Counter notice process.
YouTuber Frauditor Roundup used his service and is the true subject of the lawsuit, though his true identity is unknown.
Judge Susan G. Van Keulen presides over both lawsuits and while she has denied a request by Reed to combine both cases, this week she helped guide both cases to mediation after a status hearing in the Executive Lens case.
Reed seems to be heading to the exit as quickly as possible with both cases, and it will be interesting to see if Frauditor Roundup’s identity is obtained before Reed finds his way out.
Oh you just cannot make this up!
Now what did someone say?
@TheDMCALawyer
Nothing like Vondran arguing Personal Jurisdiction when the issue was venue. lol
And what did the judge rule on?
Jf Judge Orrick read both filings and ordered Vondran to follow through with a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction
Opps.
You know it is so hard not to be humble in the face of such foolery. I try so hard to explain law to these usenet lawyers but again and again they ignore sage wisdom to demonstrate just what jokes they are and what lolsuits they have filed.
In fact, I am torn here. My dilemma is do I keep showing them just how bad their cases are and thus if they were not so filled with self importance and delusion, they might listen and learn, thus making them into better attorneys for their clients. Or merely sit on the sideline and point at laugh as each time they stumble and fall.
Now, a real attorney, or rather a good attorney would not make such errors as they would know and understand what they are doing. Something, we have yet to see here in any of these cases up to date.
JF Whether Ms. Rapkin’s refusal to identify the subscriber who operates that 1a Audits Exposé is a violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(f) and (g).
Next case
See this is a null point. Rapkin, says I am the one to talk to. They say we want to talk with the other guy. Why? What reason? There is none. The only reason would be to dox him, when they already have the person to hold responsible named in the suit. They don’t need anyone else. If, big if, they were to win money, they have the person already who has essentially said, collect from me.
This is going to go over so well with the judge, showing yet again, this is a lolsuit and not a lawsuit. You go looking for the one with the money. Not the ghost in the machine. You sue a person working for a company, the company indemnified the person. And for the most part that is what you want to have happen. You will a million dollar judgement against a company, they might be able to pay it, or have insurance that will cover it. An ordinary person? They won’t have the money or the insurance.
Suffice to say, this shows, they are merely out for vengeance and not seek legal redress. They are merely amateurs lacking any real legal guidance or direction.
Shocking, what a surprise.
Last case
JF Reed seems to be heading to the exit as quickly as possible with both cases,
LOL and he will soon be gone leave yet another lolsuit in the dust, mere fodder to point and laugh at the failure that is frauditor lolsuits.
Of all the lolsuits vs the lawsuits, the difference is involume. A lawsuit happens in silence. No fanfare, no noise, no cameras and no arguing in public. You dgo, you do and you win. A lolsuit is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. A real lawyer goes out and does things, he does brag about all the winnings he will have before he has even filed suit. A lawyer is out for remedy not publicity. They don’t try to intimidate people over Youtube. They might try in person but never by proxy.
This is how you tell the difference.
All three lolsuits are headed to the toilet. Just waiting for the flush. Circling the drain and formerly a carpet stain, resides in the hands of one incompetent malpractice after another. No worries. I am very sure the sale of a condo should cover all those legal fees he is about to owe the other side.